"Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in
message news:b81en8$opr$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
| KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
| > I understand the 'economics' of publishing. But I also understand
| > that there's earth-shaking stuff in AoK that's flat out easy to
| > comprehend, and because it's so, it's easy for me to see that
| > stuff is not being dealt with Forthrightly.
|| No. It may be easy for you, not for us others.
|| > To my knowledge, AoK has never been formally reviewed. When I
| > out to "Scientific American", and it was back in my hands in
| > days, that just 'broke' me with respect to seeking further
| > publication.
|| Scientific American is a quite atypical forum. I am not surprised.
I discussed the specialized approach to "SA" in another post [a
follow-up to my own post to which you've replied here]
"SA" is highly-graphical, which makes it perfect for a brief
presentation of "the special topological homeomorphism of central
nervous systems" [AoK, "Short Paper", Ap3]
[AoK's "Short Paper" section is only five and a half pages long, and
is all I've ever asked folks to actually read and respond to of AoK.
It's 'hilarious' those five and a half pages are =easy= to
comprehend, and so is their significance.
So I'm going to die for want of anyone reading five and a half pages
of scientific discussion.
Why it's happening this way is that folks =do= understand what's in
AoK, and they 'think' that the only thing that's in my 'heart' is to
So they're wanting very much to assur that the archives I've kept [in
order to just fulfil my Obligation to Science] get trashed. It's
'hilarious'. To cover their own butts, they Murder me :-]
That's 'OK' - it doesn't really matter to anyone other than me - =if=
I've done enough to assure the coming forward of Truth with respect
to what's in AoK.
The rest is moot.
I've insufficient resources to survive, and no way of obtaining
So I'm 'already dead'.